Disposed

Depot Manager, v. K. Shanker

Telangana HC23 Sept 2025WP/21853/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC depot manager challenged a Labour Court award reinstating a conductor with 50% backwages. The workman had already been reinstated and the Court's earlier interim order stayed only the backwages. With respondents unrepresented, the writ petition was closed with liberty to the workman to pursue any grievance afresh.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; interim stay of 50% backwages continues; liberty to respondent No.1 to approach afresh; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Depot Manager, Vs K. Shanker — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21853 OF 2006

¶7

Between:

¶8

Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot,^{Ranigunj,Hyderabad}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

K. Shanker, Sio. K. Asharam R:/o.H.no.8-2-2691191438,lndira^Nagar,Road No.2 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Addl. lndustrial fribunal Cum^{Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad, Rep. by its} Presiding officer'

¶13

...REspoNDENTs

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,the High Courtmaybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^{particularly one in the} nature of a writ of certiorari calling^{for the records relating to the impugned order} dt.20-8-2004 and award dt.31-10-2005^{madein lD No.2412002 published on 20-} 2-2006 in G.O.Rt.No. 418, Addl.^{lndustrial Tribunal-Cum-Addl. Labour Court,} Hyderabad holding the enquiry^{vitiated and directed the petitioner herein to} reinstate the 1st Respondent^{into service with continuityof service,attendant} benefits and 50% of back-wages^{from 19-3-2002 and quashthe sameas being} bad, illegal, without^{jurisdictionand involved and passsuchother and further} orders to meet the ends^{of justice.}

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2006(WPMP.^{NO:27725 0F 20061}

¶16

Petition under section¹⁵¹ CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleasedto order} stay of execution of the award^{dt. 31-10-2005, made in lD No. 2412002published} on 20-2-2006 in G.O.Rt.No.^{418, Addl. lndustrialTribunal-Cum-Addl- Labour}

¶17

Court, Hydererbad, except in regard to reinstatement, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for ttre Petitioner: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC Counsel for ttre Respondent No.1: Ms. KAMLA SEELAM.B Counsel for ttre Respondent No.2: GP FOR LABOUR

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶21

¶22

\ \

¶23

WRIT PETI'iION No.21853 OF 2006

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶26

India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶27

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction^particularly one in the nature of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.8.2004 and award dated 31.10.2005 made in ID.No.24 of 2002^published on 20.2.2006 in G.O.Rt.No.418 Additional Industrial Tribunal-cumAdditional Labour Coutt, Hyderabad, holding the enquiry vitiated and directed the petitioner herein to reinstate the 1't Respondent into service with continuity of service, attendant benefits and 5oo/o of backwages from 19.3.2002 and^quash the same as being bad, illegal without^juisdiction and involved^and pass.,, "

¶28

When the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no

¶29

representation on behalF of the respondents on several occasions.

¶30

Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is^no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶31

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the^petitioner

¶32

submitted that on 23.10.2006, this Court while admitting^writ

¶33

petition passed the following interim order.

¶34

W. P.M. P.No.27725 of 2006

¶35

It is represented that the^petitioneris already reinstated

¶36

into service.

¶37

In the circumstances, the award of^{the Labour} Court,ⁱⁿ respect of payment of 50o/o backwages,^is stayed'"

¶38

In view of the interim order^grantedby this Court on^23.10.2006,

¶39

no further orders are required to^{be passed in this writ petition.}

¶40

¶41

Recording the said submission, the writ petition is closed. However', liberty is granted to respondent No.1 to approach afresh, if lre ha:; any grievance, in accoi'Cance with law. There shali be no order as to cost,;

¶42

Mi:;cellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC I

¶48

Two CCs to GP FOR LABOUR, High Court for of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶49

One CC to Ms. KAM LA SEELAM.B, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CD Copies

PSK PSK w

HIGH COTURT

DATED:2t310912025

ORDER

WP.No.2'l853 of 2006

THE S
(
()
1 1 t:l:B 2026

¶58

CLOSINGi OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU'T COSTS

¶59

i+6
'\z'llr I
vl
1?

Depot Manager, v. K. Shanker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Depot Manager, v. K. Shanker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Rafeeque Vs The State of Telangana

Devabakthini Kathyayini Vs The State of Telangana

Sri B. Narasing Raj Vs Sri. B. Ravinder Nayak

T.Sridhar Rao, R.R. Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., S.W. Dept. and 4 Ors.

V. Gangadhar Rao, Adilabad District and 2 Others Vs Singareni Colleries Company Ltd. Adilabad District and 2OTS

K.Indra Reddy, Warangal District. Vs Prl.Secy to Govt., Higher Edn.Hyd. and 3 Others